From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5079 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2004 03:25:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5036 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2004 03:25:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.202.64) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Nov 2004 03:25:04 -0000 Received: from [192.168.181.128] (c-67-176-41-158.client.comcast.net[67.176.41.158]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20041124032503016001shiae>; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:25:04 +0000 Message-ID: <41A3FEF7.8000204@phy.cmich.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:25:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca CC: xconq7@sources.redhat.com, xconq-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: Thoughts on terrain imaging References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg01435.txt.bz2 mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > That image-rescaling code (which I've looked at a little more since > writing my last message here) seems to be a real dog's breakfast. There > are a couple of points where it seems to be testing for error conditions > in the very next line after that code that guarantees that the error > condition can't happen, and there are other points where a comment > explaining what's about do be done is followed by a line of code that > clearly does something else. I think those are signs it's been tweaked > and patched several times in the past, and it may be that the best thing > to do might be to simply rewrite those routines - not a project I had > contemplated as part of the map-image feature addition, but one I'm > willing to tackle if it turns out to be necessary. Yes, parts of that code seemed a bit gnarled, __the few exposures that I've had to it. One of the reasons that I've been content to avoid it in the past.... I appreciate the fact that you are being open-minded about what sorts of preparatory work may need to be done before getting down to "just writing the damned feature". I think that that is a healthy attitude to have when dealing with the Xconq sources. Best regards, Eric